Clinical Outcomes and Complications With Open vs Minimally Invasive Achilles Tendon Repair. Academic Article uri icon

Overview

abstract

  • BACKGROUND: There is no current consensus on whether to use an open or minimally invasive (MIS) approach for Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture. We hypothesized that patients in both open and MIS groups would have improved patient-reported outcome scores using the PROMIS system postoperatively, but that there would be minimal differences in these scores and complication rates between operative techniques. METHODS: A total of 185 patients who underwent surgery for an acute, unilateral Achilles tendon rupture between January 2016 and June 2019, with minimum 1-year follow-up were included in the cohort studied. The minimally invasive group was defined by use of a commercially available minimally invasive device through a smaller surgical incision (n=118). The open repair group did not use the device, and suture repair was performed through larger surgical incisions (n=67). Postoperative protocols were similar between groups. Preoperative and postoperative PROMIS scores were collected prospectively through our institution's registry. Demographics and complications were recorded. RESULTS: PROMIS scores overall improved in both study groups after operative repair. No significant differences in postoperative PROMIS scores were observed between the open and MIS repair groups. There were also no significant differences in complication rates between groups. Overall, 19.5% of patients in the MIS group had at least 1 postoperative complication (8.5% deep vein thrombosis [DVT], 3.3% rerupture, 1.7% sural nerve injury, 2.5% infection), compared to 16.4% in the open group (9.0% DVT, 1.5% rerupture, 1.5% sural nerve injury, 0% infection). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing either minimally invasive or open Achilles tendon repair after acute rupture have similar PROMIS outcomes and complication types and incidences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

publication date

  • November 29, 2021

Identity

PubMed Central ID

  • PMC8646203

Scopus Document Identifier

  • 27644543613

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.1053/j.jfas.2005.07.015

PubMed ID

  • 35097483

Additional Document Info

volume

  • 6

issue

  • 4